• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Simple COOL by R-CALF

S

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Location
Nebraska
Allowing packers to indicate beef has come from imported animals without having to specify each further production step that may have occurred in the United States.;

Allowing packers to label blended products with a list of the countries of origin that may be contained in the product, rather than a definitive list of each country;

Allowing retailers to rely on pre-labeled products for origin claims;

Allowing meat packers to rely on country markings that already are applied to cattle imports in order to determine origin;

Eliminating unnecessary and duplicative record-keeping requirements regarding chain of custody and separate tracking during the production process to allow packers and retailers to rely on documents they already keep in the ordinary course of business;

Reducing the record retention requirement from two years to one year; and

Specifying that producers and retailers do not need to demand affidavits or third party verification audits of suppliers in order to adequately substantiate origin claims.
 
Now you're making some sense Sandhusker. We will ALL get a lot further by working together than any other method.
By the way, I may not agree with everything you post but I do respect your tenacity
 
Allowing packers to label blended products with a list of the countries of origin that may be contained in the product, rather than a definitive list of each country;
Click to expand...

Wouldn't work here. Imagine a Campbells soup can, already covered in french and english. Now a whole bunch of " may contain products from... " "and / or" etc.etc. all over it. I guess we'll just have to get bigger soup cans. :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
gcreekrch said:
Now you're making some sense Sandhusker. We will ALL get a lot further by working together than any other method.
By the way, I may not agree with everything you post but I do respect your tenacity
Click to expand...

Thanks, gcreek. What I'm trying to show is that those of us who are pushing for COOL also have a plan to make it workable. All the problems are coming from the folks like NCBA and AMI who are intentionally inserting those problems to make the program undesirable with the intent of it then being killed.
 
Sandhusker said:
gcreekrch said:
Now you're making some sense Sandhusker. We will ALL get a lot further by working together than any other method.
By the way, I may not agree with everything you post but I do respect your tenacity
Click to expand...

Thanks, gcreek. What I'm trying to show is that those of us who are pushing for COOL also have a plan to make it workable. All the problems are coming from the folks like NCBA and AMI who are intentionally inserting those problems to make the program undesirable with the intent of it then being killed.
Click to expand...

Personnally, from my corner of the ballpark, killing it would be the best thing :-) . I don't want to argue the fact but my advice is for you folks to put your OWN ID system in before your govt. does and live up to the TOTAL feed ban. Better to have it your own making than have it shoved down your throats. :wink:
 
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateM&navID=CountryofOriginLabeling&rightNav1=CountryofOriginLabeling&topNav=&leftNav=CommodityAreas&page=CountryOfOriginLabeling&acct=cntryoforgnlbl

Monday, April 14 2008, 3:30pm - 5:00pm Today

HARKIN ANNOUNCES FARM BILL CONFERENCE MEETING


WASHINGTON D.C. – Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate-House Conference Committee on the farm bill, today announced a meeting for all Senate and House farm bill conferees.

The conference committee is scheduled for Monday, April 14, 2008, at 4:00 PM in room 325 of the Russell Senate Office Building (Russell Caucus Room).

The proceedings will be available live @ 4:00 p.m. by clicking here.
 
Poor Sandhusker, it appears you let NCBA successes irritate you all out of reason!

You fail to understand that there are a very large number of cattle producers who really believe the market place and the ALREADY EXISTING rules which allow labeling of beef and other products as to country of origin.

Some of us believe that ability for producers to capture the value we add to OUR product is superior to a flawed law that most likely will have "UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES" if implemented as written.

mrj
 
mrj said:
Poor Sandhusker, it appears you let NCBA successes irritate you all out of reason!

You fail to understand that there are a very large number of cattle producers who really believe the market place and the ALREADY EXISTING rules which allow labeling of beef and other products as to country of origWhat I'm trying to show is that those of us who are pushing for COOL also have a plan to make it workable. All the problems are coming from the folks like NCBA and AMI who are intentionally inserting those problems to make the program undesirable with the intent of it then being killed.in.

Some of us believe that ability for producers to capture the value we add to OUR product is superior to a flawed law that most likely will have "UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES" if implemented as written.

mrj
Click to expand...

Sandhusker said:
What I'm trying to show is that those of us who are pushing for COOL also have a plan to make it workable. All the problems are coming from the folks like NCBA and AMI who are intentionally inserting those problems to make the program undesirable with the intent of it then being killed.
Click to expand...
8)
 
mrj said:
Poor Sandhusker, it appears you let NCBA successes irritate you all out of reason!

You fail to understand that there are a very large number of cattle producers who really believe the market place and the ALREADY EXISTING rules which allow labeling of beef and other products as to country of origin.

Some of us believe that ability for producers to capture the value we add to OUR product is superior to a flawed law that most likely will have "UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES" if implemented as written.

mrj
Click to expand...

WHAT NCBA successes?

MRJ, what you and other lemmings fail to understand is that the ALREADY EXISTING rules aren't doing a damn thing for producers or consumers because the packers (your 'partners in industry") make more money passing other countries product off as yours and they are currently lobbying to get more of your competitor's product qualified so they can buy less of yours.

You "believe" that the competition title will limit producer's marketing choices, yet even after being asked repeatedly to offer a single example, you are unable to do so. You "believe" that SRM removal guarantees the safety of beef, yet you would not knowingly serve beef from a SRM removed BSE positive animal to your family. You only believe what NCBA tells you to believe.
 
Surely you don't think you can "sell" your gibberish to Harris Ranch Beef producers, among MANY such ventures and alliance groups, do you?

mrj
 
mrj said:
Surely you don't think you can "sell" your gibberish to Harris Ranch Beef producers, among MANY such ventures and alliance groups, do you?

mrj
Click to expand...

How will producers be prevented from doing business with Harris?
 
I never said that, at all.

The point is that there are MANY individuals and groups of producers who are making use of EXISTING label rules to identify their superior beef products and we don't need your flawed COOL law to do it.

Don't forget the "unintended consequences" of poorly written, politically motivated laws!!!!

INO, COOL was so obviously INTENDED to be Tom Daschles "get reelected easily" gift to R-CALF members........most definitely not anything the cattle industry needed, especially when it was so problem filled.

mrj
 
MRJ, "I never said that, at all. "

That's part of the problem, MRJ. You have yet to come up with a single example of how the competition title will limit producer's marketing option. Not one. Yet, it is YOUR opinion that it will? Exactly what input led you to that conclusion - other than NCBA/AMI telling you that?

MRJ, "Don't forget the "unintended consequences" of poorly written, politically motivated laws!!!!"

You can thank the NCBA/AMI for the poor part of the law. Look what R-CALF is trying to get done. What has NCBA proposed?

Will the big packers still be NCBA's "partners in industry" when they replace your beef with South American?
 
Poor Sandhusker, you just cannot take it when someone does not agree with your OPINIONS!

Fact isit isn't just my "opinion", but comments of cattle producers who DO make use of alternative marketing arrangements who have stated that they believe your so called Competition Title WILL limit their options for selling their cattle. Then there is the odious problem of giving government the right to say who may own cattle when and for how long!

I would not presume to tell them they don't know what they are talking about. Obviously doing so doesn't bother you.

Lots of good old time ranchers must be rotating pretty fast in those graves over the number of the 'current rancher models' who are demanding government say who can own cattle when and for how long!!!!!

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling"..........gets pretty old when over generations those old conspiracy theories fade in and out of style.

mrj
 
I read where you didn't want packers to own cattle acchording to government laws. Isn't that saying who can and can't own cattle? :oops: Or does that not count.
 
QUESTION said:
I read where you didn't want packers to own cattle acchording to government laws. Isn't that saying who can and can't own cattle? :oops: Or does that not count.
Click to expand...

You either read wrong or interpreted wrong. A packer can't "pack" without cattle, and they have to buy cattle to do that. Nobody is proposing any law that says a packer can't buy cattle.

When outfits like NCBA and AMI make the claim that R-CALF and others want to ban packers from owning cattle - and then parrots repeat that - people need to think for a minute and ask themselves if that statement makes sense. That would be like a law stating that Exxon/Mobil couldn't buy crude. Does that make sense? Clearly not.
 
So then SandH you have no problem with vertical intergration and packers owning cattle. Even as calves and feeding then out to have a ready supply to keep their plants full. :wink:
 
QUESTION said:
So then SandH you have no problem with vertical intergration and packers owning cattle. Even as calves and feeding then out to have a ready supply to keep their plants full. :wink:
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's pretty much word for word what I just wrote. :roll:

Geeeeeeeeeez
 

Latest posts

Back
Top